'Anglo-America absorbed millions of alien immigrants in the 19th century, then went on to become the biggest superpower in world history!'

As it happens, both these statements are true. It is also true that after metal helmets replaced leather ones, the number of soldiers' head injuries increased. So did America become a huge superpower because, or in spite of, these aliens? Or a little of both?

And if these waves of 19th c. foreigners did make her stronger, can the same be said of the millions streaming in yearly now?

The question is by no means flip. Many of the arguments used by immigration restrictionists in 2012 are identical to those used a hundred years ago. It's a case of Chicken Little, says our open-border contingent--'Your predecessors said the sky would fall; it didn't, and this time it won't either.'

J.R. Commons was a bit skeptical of the ranking, noting that not all immigrants came from the same classes:

The Huguenots and the French, according to Lodge's statistics, show a percentage of ability in proportion to their total immigration much higher than that of any other race. But the Huguenots were a select class of people, manufacturers and merchants, perhaps the most intelligent and enterprising of Frenchmen in the seventeenth century. (1)

He also argues that the English themselves migrated in different groups, from paupers to nobility, and that to be fair, one must expect more men of eminence to come from an urban milieu than a rural one. (Germans were the most under-represented on this list, according to Lodge; Commons counters that they were mostly country folk.)

These arguments aside, can one claim a country's 'eminent men' have something to do with its racial make-up? For the U.S., can one argue that parts of its European make-up have helped it, and others have hurt it? If you are White American, what stratum do you hail from--and can one say your people have truly assimilated? To what does one assimilate in this country? And will those who come after you do the same?

Most Americans who fix on an identity of 'white' today are on ethnically diverse ground. In the very earliest days of the Republic, mixing was already here:

It is the distinctive fact regarding colonial migration that it was Teutonic in blood and Protestant in religion. The English, Dutch, Swedes, Germans, and even the Scotch-Irish, who constituted practically the entire migration, were less than two thousand years ago one Germanic race in the forests surrounding the North Sea. The Protestant Reformation, sixteen centuries later, began among those peoples and found in them its sturdiest supporters. The doctrines of the Reformation, adapted as they were to the strong individualism of the Germanic races, prepared the hearts of men for the doctrines of political liberty and constitutional government of the succeeding century. (1)

Here we see ethnic settlement up to the 1850s and 1860s (drawn from the 1870 census):

We see the spike in the 1850s, heavily Irish and German, which led to the nativist Know-Nothing movement, followed by a huge dip during the Civil War. The 1870s and 1890s Depressions both led to big slumps. When J.R. Commons published this map, in 1907, Slavic and Mediterranean immigration was exploding.

2) The post-1880 immigrant: Who? Why?

Why did it matter that the immigrants who came later were from places other than NW Europe? J.R. Commons describes the change that came around 1882, when immigrants from 'Teutonic' races were replaced with

...Latin,
Slav, Semitic, and Mongolian races. When the sources of American immigration are shifted from the Western countries so nearly allied to
our own, to Eastern countries so remote in the main attributes of
Western civilization, the change is one that should challenge the
attention of every citizen.

Nevertheless, the peasantry of Europe to-day [1907] is in large part the product of serfdom and of that race-subjection which produced serfdom. ... The [South/Eastern] European peasant, says Professor Shaler, "knows himself to be by birthright a member of an inferior class, from which there is practically no chance of escaping. . . . It is characteristic of peasants that they have accepted this inferior lot. .... They have no large sense of citizenly motives; they feel no sense of responsibility for any part of the public life save that which lies within their own narrow round of action."

How different from the qualities of the typical American citizen whose forefathers have erected our edifice of representative democracy! It was not the peasant class of Europe that sought these shores in order to found a free government. It was the middle class, the merchants and yeomen, those who in religion and politics were literally "protestants," and who possessed the intelligence, manliness, and public spirit which urged them to assert for themselves those inalienable rights which the church or the state of their time had arrogated to itself. With such a social class democracy is the only acceptable form of government. They demand and secure equal opportunities because they are able to rise to those opportunities. (1)

The Italians were often thought to be the most degraded of the
European newcomers. They were swarthy, more than half of them
were illiterate, and most all were victims of a standard of living
lower than that of any of the other prominent nationalities.

...An old-fashioned New York gentleman in the 1830's burst out: "A dirty Irishman is bad enough, but he's nothing comparable to a nasty . . .
Italian loafer."Wherever they went, a distinctive sobriquet followed them. "You don't call . . . an Italian a white man?" a West Coast construction boss was asked. "No, sir," he answered, "an Italian is a Dago." (2)

It is worth noting that the great mass of northern Italian immigrants to the Western Hemisphere made their way to Argentina and Brazil, while most southern Italians came to the United States. A reminder about the two regions:

Eastern Jews did not receive a warm welcome either:

The New York Tribune
in 1882 noted blandly: "Numerous complaints have been made in
regard to the Hebrew immigrants who lounge about Battery Park,
obstructing the walks and sitting on the chains. Their filthy condition has caused many of the people who are accustomed to go to
the park to seek a little recreation and fresh air to give up this
practice. The immigrants also greatly annoy the persons who cross
the park to take the boats to Coney Island, Staten Island and Brooklyn. The police have had many battles with these newcomers, who
seem determined to have their own way." (2)

They
had, of course, their own unique status, fixed by the ancient Shylock stereotype; they stood for chicane rather than crime or revolution...
But the Jews' unscrupulous greed now seemed as potentially subversive as the doings of bloodthirsty Italians, "furious
Huns," or Irish papists. [...] "Money is their God," wrote Jacob Riis of the Russian Jews
as a whole. (2)

Cities drew the new immigrants by millions, and cities bred poverty and crime. Commons:

The cities, too, furnish that choice of employers and that easy reliance on charitable and friendly assistance which is so necessary to the indigent labour looking for work. Thus it is that those races of immigrants the least self-reliant or forehanded, like the Irish and the Italians, seek the cities in greater proportions than those sturdy races like the Scandinavians, English, Scotch, and Germans.

[Italians] soon acquired a
reputation as bloodthirsty criminals. Since southern Italians had
never learned to fight with their fists, knives flashed when they
brawled among themselves or jostled with other immigrants. Soon
a penologist was wondering how the country could build prisons
which Italians would not prefer to their own slum quarters. On
the typical Italian the prison expert commented: "The knife with
which he cuts his bread he also uses to lop off another 'dago's'
finger or ear. . . . He is quite as familiar with the sight of human
blood as with the sight of the food he eats." (2)

The severe ethnic balkanization of cities led to a general rise in street gangs:

"The Jewish gangs that grew up to protect the Jew against the Irish,
the Italian gangs later in conflict with the Jewish gangs, the old comment in certain parts of Chicago that"Every Irish kid was raised to
kill a Swede,"the conflict between Negro and white that led to race
riots in Chicago and East St. Louis, all trace the long-time irritation and
conflict that contributed to the habit of violence, that led to coalescence
of groups practicing violence against their neighbors,... (3)

In his 1943 work Race and Crime, Adrian Bonger analyzes the crime rates of various European peoples, both in their home countries and in the U.S. Here are the assault, murder, and manslaughter rates for immigrants to the U.S. in 1910, by place of birth:

The Prohibition movement was strongly interwoven with distrust of Catholic and Jewish immigrants. Alcohol-related crime was an intense preoccupation for many 19th century Protestant Americans. Here are some statistics; we note the place of Mediterraneans on this list:

This is exactly the political problem that grows out of the presence of
races and immigrants. [...] A variety of races and nationalities living in the same ward are
asked to elect aldermen and other officers by majority vote. No one
nationality has a majority, but each sets up its list of candidates. The
nationality with a mere plurality elects all of its candidates, and the
other nationalities—a majority of the voters—are unrepresented. This
is an extreme case, and has not often been allowed to happen. But the
only means of preventing it is the “ward boss.”

The boss emerges from
the situation as inevitably as the survival of the fittest. And the
fittest is the Irishman. The Irishman has above all races the mixture of
ingenuity, firmness, human sympathy, comradeship, and daring that makes
him the amalgamator of races. He conciliates them all by nominating a
ticket on which the offices are shrewdly distributed; and out of the
Babel his “slate” gets the majority.

The representative becomes a tool in the
hands of the boss. The boss sells his power to corporations, franchise
speculators, and law-evaders. Representative democracy becomes
bossocracy in the service of plutocracy. The ward system worked well
when the suffrage was limited. Then the business men elected their
business man unimpeded. But a system devised for restricted suffrage
breaks down under universal suffrage. (1)

A reputation for corruption followed the Irish:

At the end of the 1860's, the extortions of the
Tweed Ring in New York City, supported to a considerable degree by Irish votes, aroused an outraged middle-class opposition.
In the process, leading civic reformers struck a good many nativistic blows at "the rule of the uncultivated Irish Catholics."For a
time the crusading cartoonist, Thomas Nast, flayed the Catholic
Church, the Irish, and Tweed with equal fury. (2)

Picture depicts
innocent voters dropping their ballots into a garbage basket while Tweed
and his gang stands around innocently.

Caption:
(Boss) "You have the Liberty of Voting for any one you please; but we
have the Liberty of Counting in any one we please."

6) The 19th century immigrant and labor

Throughout the 1800s (as today), immigration had been most staunchly supported by Big Business and the professional class, and most fiercely resisted by the wage-earner. Commons, in 1907:

It is an easy and patriotic matter for the
lawyer, minister, professor, employer, or investor, placed above the
arena of competition, to proclaim the equal right of all races to
American opportunities; to avow his own willingness to give way should
even a better Chinaman, Hindu, or Turk come in to take his place; and to
rebuke the racial hatred of those who resist this displacement. His
patriotism and world-wide brotherhood cost him and his family nothing,
and indeed they add to his profits and leisure. (1)

It was only in the 1890s, in the midst of a terrible Depression, that Big Capital began to change its mind:

Arguing for thoroughgoing restriction, the general manager of the American Iron and Steel Association maintained that the depression was greatly aggravated by "the presence among us of thousands of idle and vicious foreigners who have not come here to work for a living but to stir up strife and to commit crime."

[...] When a showdown came in Congress in 1896-97, the area west of the Missouri River voted almost unanimously for general immigration restriction.... By 1896, a good majority of southern Senators and Representatives had swung over to restriction. (2)

And so it was, that in the 1890s the 'nativist' movement finally caught on, leading to several years of attempts at voting immigration caps, finally passed in 1921 and sealed by the 1924 Immigration Act (reducing non-NW Euro entries to a mere drip). The doors would not be opened again until 1965.

* * *

As attached as many white Americans are to their European heritage, for many if not most of us it is a mixed bag. Here is a snapshot of the ethnic patchwork on just a small snippet of the Wisconsin/Minnesota border:

The unprecedented waves of South and East European migration in the 1880s and 1890s rattled America deeply. They should have. The country's founding stock were at that time threatened with eclipse. Were these people assimilable?

Some say no--that this era marked the beginning of the end of our great Anglo-Protestant republican experiment. Some say yes--that after turning off the tap in 1924, many of the foreign groups who weren't already 'marrying out' were suddenly forced to do so. This intermingling between higher- and lower-ability Euro groups led to a 'leveling' by which today, globally, American Whites are behaviorally and cognitively similar to modern NW Europeans. Wiki:

An analysis of Census information and immigration records would suggest that 62 percent of White Americans today are of British Isles descent, and a total of 86 percent are of Northwestern European origins. Approximately 14 percent of U.S. whites are of southern and eastern European ancestry.

To add further weight, a World War II ethnic background of the U.S. put the top four backgrounds as 36 million British (English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish), 32 million German, 29 million Irish, 12 million Italian and 10 million Polish.

These numbers would perhaps reassure old-time alarmists like Henry Cabot Lodge--most white Americans today are of at least part NW Euro blood. And even those of mainly Slavic or Mediterranean descent seem to have assimilated rather well.

The debate rages about Latin Americans' future in the U.S. The mainly Spanish-blood arrivals of the 19th c. have given way to millions-strong waves of Amerindian mestizos. Is there evidence that ethnic Iberians can run modern, prosperous, just states? There is. Is there evidence that pure Amerindians or mestizos can run such a state? For the moment, there is not.

As far as Indians and Chinese, one could well look at these two countries and ask himself if he would like to live in such a place. Current migratory flows ('voting with one's feet') show that not many Euro-Americans are so tempted. Au grand contraire:

We find
that our democratic theories and forms of government were fashioned by
but one of the many races and peoples which have come within their
practical operation, and that that race, the so-called Anglo-Saxon,
developed them out of its own insular experience unhampered by inroads
of alien stock. When once thus established in England and further
developed in America we find that other races and peoples, accustomed to
despotism and even savagery, and wholly unused to self-government, have
been thrust into the delicate fabric. Like a practical people as we
pride ourselves, we have begun actually to despotize our institutions in
order to control these dissident elements, though still optimistically
holding that we retain the original democracy. (1)

Commons wrote these words in 1907; he may just as well have penned them last week.

Optimists say that the U.S. will absorb and assimilate the current inflows just as well as she did the old. Nothing will change of the American character, spirit, intelligence.

Pessimists say the seeds of the U.S.'s demise were already sown in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, and we've been a ticking time bomb since.

Does the truth lie somewhere in-between? In all likelihood...

...we'll have our answer before this third American century is finished.

34 comments:

As always, an excellent post. The content on this site is unmatched in regard to quality of information and clarity.

I've attempted to produce well-researched content with proper citation in the past, though it is very pain-staking for me. For that I have to admire your efforts.

All of the posts I've read have contained very interesting insight, though I have to say "When America Lays down to Rest" is the most thought provoking. The US has an unsustainable political system, and will likely be the most visible collapse among Anglo nations and the west in general.

This will affect white people in a big way. Personally, I have questioned how long I can continue to live the life I want to live at the standard of living I take for granted. I fear that someday, I will be forced to leave for a more stable country. I, and I believe many like me, are interested in alternative safe-havens given this scenario.

Have you ever considered expanding on this topic? For instance, which countries may welcome whites from various countries (providing countries with an influx of capital, influx of highly skilled workers); which countries provide the safest and best opportunities for emigrants.

west underground--Thanks for reading and commenting. It's very motivating.

The US has an unsustainable political system, and will likely be the most visible collapse among Anglo nations and the west in general.

Agreed. The predictions on where we'll end up are all over the board--from Civil War-level bloodshed, to a simple slide into Brazil-like living conditions. Since I feel inertia is the strongest force in human history, I lean towards the latter.

Whites do live pretty well in Latin America, which is why we don't see them flooding our country. If our (white Americans') future looks like their present, then we can expect middle class people to start living in heavily-guarded gated communities, low-level street crime to become part of the landscape (everyone's been mugged or knows someone who has), that type of thing. Not the end of the world, but nowhere near the same comfort level as when the U.S. was 90% Euro and 10% strictly-contained Afro.

I, and I believe many like me, are interested in alternative safe-havens given this scenario.

Yes, this group seems to be growing. Fleeing to another Anglo country seems easiest, but they all seem to be treading the same path as us, so it might be like trying to out-run a storm. Eastern Europe appeals to some, East Asia to others (though one reason that's an appealing destination is the very fact they're so closed to outsiders!)

I agree this is a topic that could do with some research, for people who are looking for practical solutions in a 5- to 15-year timeframe. I've put it on my list of topics to study.

Also, I just saw your blog for the first time today so I will be checking it out. Thanks again for taking the time to comment.

There are ways to reclaim the USA from the hordes of low-IQ, low-trust, low-social-capital immigrants who've flooded in since 1965. One way is to address the fiscal problems of exploding entitlements by demanding responsibility of all recipients; the "undeserving poor" need to be thrown out of the social safety net so that it can be preserved for those who do deserve our help.

Making a ruckus about "public charges" in immigration is a good start, since it's already in the law. Point out who is responsible for most of our gang activity. Stoke that resentment! The less the brown hordes can get from the US taxpayer, the less they'll reproduce and the more likely they are to go back where they came from.

I think the Irish thing is skewed by Anglo-Irish history. If France had won the colonial wars i think the Irish would probably have assimilated fairly easily and it would be Bretons and Basques having the equivalent of St Patrick's day parades.

#

A separate issue but the table for crimes while drunk shows a very interesting northern vs southern europe pattern. Alcohol resistance mediated through adaptation to grains in the diet i.e. a more diluted version of the native American problem?

If France had won the colonial wars i think the Irish would probably have assimilated fairly easily and it would be Bretons and Basques having the equivalent of St Patrick's day parades.

Quite possibly. Or, the Basques and Bretons might have comported themselves more like the Welsh and Scots did. My feeling from reading old texts about Irish immigration into Britain back in the day is that the British really did consider them dysfunctional and primitive. (Full disclosure--I'm of part Irish descent) I've never gotten the sense that Parisians had the same feeling toward Bretons and Basques.

On the subject of Spanish Basques, in fact, I read somewhere (Samuel Huntington's 'Culture Matters' maybe?) that one reason Chili is relatively successful compared to her neighbors is because the large Basque immigrant element was especially industrious/capable.

There is something really odd about the whole Irish question. They seem pretty normal and first-world today, both in their country and out of it, but to read reports from a couple hundred years ago you'd think people were talking about Australian aborigenes. What happened there?

Alcohol resistance mediated through adaptation to grains in the diet i.e. a more diluted version of the native American problem?

This really seems likely to me. Don't they say agriculture spread from the Mediterranean first and to northern climes long after? Anecdotally, living here you see a big difference in how Mediterraneans handle alcohol vs. anyone up in the British Isles. I also read in that Bonger 'Race and Crime' book that back in the day the Finnish were considered by their neighbors to be totally unmanageable and a real danger when drunk.

Slightly related, I read recently the idea that agriculture might have actually come about in the first place from a desire to create alcoholic beverages in quantity. Don't know if that's science though or just wild speculation.

I think you'll find the "Brazil" scenario is dependent on Western military superiority.

How so? I think people make the Brazil comparison based on current immigration/fertility trends, i.e., if things continue like this, we'll end up demographically close to Brazil--a white Euro minority, with the rest being mixed Amerindian mestizos and Afros.

"There is something really odd about the whole Irish question...but to read reports from a couple hundred years ago you'd think people were talking about Australian aborigenes. What happened there?"

Yes it is odd and i think too much to just be prejudice so i think there was a real thing - lots of inbreeding which lifted rapidly after they moved away from the old villages - but i think there's an extra element of willful anti-assimilation due to Anglo-Irish history which wouldn't have been the case if the French had won.

Breton and Basque were the closest examples i could think of to a similar thing but yes they're not that close really.

."Anecdotally, living here you see a big difference in how Mediterraneans handle alcohol vs. anyone up in the British Isles."

If it is related to the spread of agriculture - especially grains - then there should be a SE to NW (ish) cline across Europe with Greece and Italy at the bottom of the list for specifically alcohol related crime - like the list in the post - as the Greeks and Southern Italians have had the longest to adapt.

It seems potentially very significant to me so i wonder no one seems to have thought of it. Maybe they have but there's nothing you can do about alcohol tolerance or maybe my ultra brief googling wasn't enough.

."I don't follow your point about Hugo Chavez--could you elaborate?"

When people talk about America becoming like Brazil i don't think they're taking into account the effect of western military superiority on the way countries like Brazil currently are.

The world has been operating on the assumption of western military dominance for centuries. If the big dog becomes like Brazil and therefore no longer poses a threat then people like Chavez will be on TV waving machetes with full intent to see them used.

If America becomes like Brazil Brazil won't be like Brazil anymore, Venezuela won't be like Venezuela any more etc. It'll be revenge time all over encouraged by the mass media.

As usual, my brain is stuck processing all this information after reading yet another highly informative and relevant post, and as usual this shall result in yet another inane, low IQ comment.

But that has never stopped me before!

The way forward is clear, and you have seen this scenario play out in many a country. It is especially prevalent in Latin America.

The caste society.

With the top elite (usually White, in our case, predominantly Jewish) caste at the top, literally (well, perhaps figuratively...) living in castles/palaces in the air.

Next down will be a (small) professional caste, with people whose skills are valuable. Perhaps 5-10% of the population (but closer to 5% is my guess).

The rest will be the proles - you know, people taking public transportation, getting mugged... or raped... or shot... in broad daylight on a busy city street, trying to survive by getting any job available.

Exactly what we have in Brasil, and, really, in most of the rest of Latin America.

The clearest example for the yanks is, of course, Mexico.

That is our future.

There, the elite class is White European descendants (really, a totally alien element to the natives) lording it over the indios.

Here, it is the higher caste Jews (totally alien to the rest of the groups), but this will (well, is) very well masked by our multicultural society.

As in, every time a Jewish person gets up there in the non-hidden government (as opposed to the shadow one), it is trumpeted as "White privilege!" as opposed to Jewish privilege.

Now, if you excuse me, I have to get back to Decisiones, because I adore Latinas with big boobs (who really are whiter than many "White" Americans I know, funnily enough).

Just like with 'racism', I'm not sure what 'assimilation' means anymore.

But having lived in CA for almost thirty years, I know what a 'barrio' is -- it's the part of a city with a predominantly Hispanic population. From what I saw, you can characterize nearly every one by saying it's a sprawling, suburban Hispanic slum. Which is not unexpected, since in some heavily Hispanic areas only about half the kids manage to graduate from high school (meaning it should not be taken for granted that they can read and/or do arithmetic at a grade school level).

So rather than 'assimilation', it seems better to ask: Can one have a stable, prosperous, first world country with a 'critical mass' of Hispanics? Looking at Central and South America, including Mexico, the answer seems to be 'No'.

What's happened demographically to America is beyond sad. A valuable demographic heritage, one that produced a nation -- and an economy (handy thing to have if you want to get a good job and have a materially high standard of living) -- that was the envy of the world. Literally. All thrown away for a bucket of politically correct hogwash.

i think there's an extra element of willful anti-assimilation due to Anglo-Irish history

Ah yes, I see what you mean. And yes, it seems like some clannish or in-bred elements existed earlier, but got bred out over time. I know the whole question of Irish IQ has been spilling ink recently--I think it's perfectly reasonable to imagine that the Irish were batting way under their potential for a long time cuz of Flynn effect reasons, and have now hit their ceiling.

If America becomes like Brazil Brazil won't be like Brazil anymore, Venezuela won't be like Venezuela any more etc.

Good point about Latin America. I wonder what will happen there when we start to decline--major re-shuffling of borders, more extreme left-wing governments/counter-coups? (I always look to pre-EU Spain and Portugal to try to get an idea about that) Could be their deadliest weapon against us has already been deployed--sending the least functional of their populations into our country.

Yes, this is it in a nutshell. So many U.S. progressives are totally ignorant of the caste dynamics at work in Latin America. It's not a total separation like apartheid, but the fact that darker people are consantly trying to 'marry light' (mejorar la raza) and thus enter the ranks of the 'whites' should tell us all we need to know.

One of the arguments re: Jews and multiculturalism is that "Well, they wouldn't like to live in a hellhole shell of a nation with a minority White population, amongst, say, non-Whites".

My non-specialist view is that like every other ethnic group, Ashkenazi Jews do more or less what they're 'programmed' to do, that is, what natural selection has pushed them over millennia to do. There's not always a lot of thought behind it. This is partly why they've so often found themselves hounded and chased out of host countries in the past--if there were real cunning and calculation going on, they'd pull back to save their own skin, but they don't. Of course this would probably be true of any ethnic group that'd been wandering around rootless for the last few thousand years, living mostly in cities.

I am Anonymous 17/9/12 5:25 PM, and MG, I am still reeling from your prophecy. I believe that you are narrowing down on the truth to be seen. Next step will be action to benefit rationally from the rationally inevitable. We can now see, so we can see the writing on the wall.

I believe that your demographic breakdown of Europeans is intensely interesting, especially with regards to the Finns. Northern Wisconsin, and Minnesota are settled by Norwegians, Finns, with some more docile Swedes and Germans. The bar behavior up here certainly does get crazy, with more of a sort of menacing nature to the drunkenness.

M.G, I love your blog so much I have forsaken all others. Formerly rational places, such as AR, have sunk into cesspools of name-calling. It seems that the worst aspect of Whites, besides our tendency to be too generous, is to TURN INTENSELY ON ONE ANOTHER. Which is the fault of those drunken Finns, clearly (its actually the conniving English that are the real fightbrokers)

If treason is the highest crime, then Whites have committed it. We shall see the consequences of this treason play out over the next decades.

"Jayman", http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/solutions-again/, is your fearless researching peer. This linked post is about Solutions, now that we have our HBD knowledge. He writes a lot about fertility and dysgenics.

I hope in the next decade, that you two could meet eye to eye over a conference table. He is BLACK, and is very against the dysgenic trends in the USA.

eah--So rather than 'assimilation', it seems better to ask: Can one have a stable, prosperous, first world country with a 'critical mass' of Hispanics? Looking at Central and South America, including Mexico, the answer seems to be 'No'.

This is it, I think. And I might change 'Hispanic' to 'Amerindian and mestizo.' The census people use 'Hispanic' to mean literally anyone from south of the border, be he 100% pure-blood Spanish or a Quichua Indian fresh off the mountain. Needless to say, the former group are thrilled to unload the latter onto their wealthy Anglo neighbors to the north.

Vicente Fox was particularly revolting in this regard. Hearing this white man berate the American government for not taking in more of his brown 'brothers' while tossing into prison the Guatamalans sneaking over his own southern border was a master class in hypocrisy. Imagine if the U.S. could dump the poorest 1/5 of its population onto Canada and make them feel guilty for not taking more.

In the first place, this author [Urbye] points out that the enormous aggressive criminality of the Finns is explained by alcoholism, which is very prevalent among them. ... This table shows, at the same time, that the other Scandinavian peoples are also guilty to a great extent of misdemeanors while under the influence of alcohol, although in their case this does not lead to serious aggressive criminality. This would confirm the remark by Lellep that alcohol causes different reactions in different races.

Of course, as Finland today shows, the fact that your ethnic group has a bad reaction to alcohol doesn't mean you can't create a very livable society. Awareness is key.

Formerly rational places, such as AR, have sunk into cesspools of name-calling.

There's the other side of the coin too--more people on AR yelling at each other might mean that more Euros are 'seeing the light' and joining AR, including progressives. Thus it could be racially-aware conservatives and progressives yelling about peripheral issues, which is not a surprise. 100 years ago, when everyone was racially aware, lefties and righties, they were still yelling at each other. (But none of them favored importing a half million mestizos per year--we need to reclaim that sanity.)

Dewey--Yes, Jayman is doing excellent work on these questions. He digs into the data to look at things from many different angles, is not afraid to float new hypotheses, and best of all, he talks about practical (as opposed to pie-in-the-sky) policy solutions. I know a lot of people are expecting an apocalyptic race war, but on the off-chance that HBD does go 'mainstream,' there are going to be policy-makers scrambling for answers. Jayman's one of the people working in that direction.

"Well, they wouldn't like to live in a hellhole shell of a nation with a minority White population, amongst, say, non-Whites".

They're adapted to living in that environment and instinctively work to recreate it as it gives them a competitive advantage over people who are adapted to living in homogenous groups.

"I wonder what will happen there when we start to decline"

It will vary by country but i think indio-majority countries in Latin America will see ethnicity based revolutions and that will give other people ideas. The main form will be race-tinted versions of communism similar to the ones flying around during African de-colonization with a lot of individual YKW behind the scenes like in South Africa. It will be genocidal in effect if not idealogy.

As white people in America turn into a minority i think you'll see increasing glimpses of this on the faces of MSM pundits.

But if you start from the premise that western societies are, and will remain, economically competitive and egalitarian, then there are no "answers". Sorry. Because due to the reality of HBD, when you look at mean achievement -- i.e. any measure of economic well-being -- there will always be stratification along racial/ethnic lines. And to me this is the very definition of what today is seen as actionable social pathology.

The only 'answer' is massive wealth transfer schemes, which are, to me, politically, perhaps even morally, absolutely unacceptable (sorry, I do not want to be forced, under penalty of law/jail, to subsidize another ethnic group's innate inability or social dysfunction -- which is basically what welfare has been doing for several generations now, e.g. with American Blacks).

I don't know if there will be an "apocalyptic race war" or not. But about prospects generally ... I am extremely pessimistic.

Has Brazil ever had the intense White Power and White Nationalist groups in their history the way the US has?

The US was for a long time a dominant world power as a White nation, one of the most dominant powers in the history of man... while Brazil was never anything close to this.

What I'm getting at here is I'm wondering if the US has a more deeply rooted historical sense of White pride and White domination/success than was ever ingrained in Brazil... which makes me like to think that there will be more resistance here among the White population against allowing the US to descend into Brazil.

(And yes, I realize political correctness and progressives are actively and successively at work at tearing a lot of that down, but I still wonder if it might be a fundamental social difference between the US and Brazil. I can't say for sure though - I don't honestly know Brazil's history well enough... although from my brief understanding I'm under the impression that miscegenation (between the Euros/Natives/Blacks) was very much an ingrained and accepted part of the Brazilian society from early on (diametrically opposed to our policy of Manifest Destiny)... different policies that interestingly led to much different results in the two nations. So I wonder if White Americans have a stronger sense of identity that they want to preserve unlike anything white Brazilians ever had... even if it's only a small fierce minority of White Americans.)

You've good reason to be, no question. Some people are just naturally driven to try to dream up policy ideas for an alternate universe where HBD is 100% accepted. But in such a scenario, would people seek any solutions other than 'massive wealth transfer schemes,' as you put it--that indeed is the question.

TFD--What I'm getting at here is I'm wondering if the US has a more deeply rooted historical sense of White pride and White domination/success than was ever ingrained in Brazil...

In social affairs, the color line between the whites and the mixed-blood race is neither hard nor fast. Many of the so-called whites are tinged with Negro or Indian blood. Intermarriage is forbidden neither by law nor by custom, and mixed unions are not uncommon. To the Portuguese, the idea of personal contact with an Indian or a Negro excites little feeling of physical repulsion. [...] ...there is in Spanish and Portuguese countries no such sharp colour line as exists where men of Teutonic stock are settled in countries outside of Europe. As this is true of the negro, it is even more true of the Indian.

For whatever reason, yes, Iberians have always seemed more open to race-mixing than NW Euros. Some say it's because they already have more Mediterranean/African blood, who knows. But your point is well taken: We can't assume American Whites will act like Brazilian Whites, since they're not made of the same stuff.

As far as I know, Euro-Brazilians are a mix of Portuguese, Spanish, Northern Italians, and Germans (also a huge number of Japanese migrated there), with a dollop of Amerindian. Genetically and culturally they're quite different from (mostly) NW-Euro-blood Americans. So yes, maybe it's hasty to imagine that Whites in the U.S. will just sink into Latin America-like living conditions without a fight. But what'll be the straw that breaks the camel's back...

The discussion about Brazil is an interesting one. The military sphere of influence extends not just to Brazil, but over the whole world. I think this has implications to other potential "exit nations".

I was considering moving to Singapore for some time because of their common-law system and low corruption levels. They have one of the world's highest GDP per capita, and they speak English as a first language. They are also very close to China.

For the moment, China has it's hands tied because it has a paltry Navy compared to the USN, with little amphibious or air projection capability. However, if the US military power wanes, I think China will have free reign to stake its claim over the south China sea oil deposits, and reclaim Taiwan. They may expand their influence over other areas, including Singapore, and possibly Japan. South Korea will have to deal with North Korea and possibly China on it's own. These economies are also highly dependent on Western consumers for their high-tech exports. A weakened West may change the economic and political environments in these nations, making them less desirable destinations.

Perhaps Europe, or the interior of the US will be better destinations.

west underground--Yes, it's an open question what will happen in the South China Sea once U.S. military power goes into serious decline. China's prowling around there like a cat, waiting for us to go away. Needless to say Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines etc. are all preparing for the worst.

It seems to me what China's after is not so much lebensraum as natural resources. Look at their current back-door colonization of parts of Africa. They've got to keep the industrial machine going and will go to any lengths to make that happen. What that will mean for Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, even Japan--the most desirable places to live in East Asia--in the next 30 or so years is really up in the air.

I also read in that Bonger 'Race and Crime' book that back in the day the Finnish were considered by their neighbors to be totally unmanageable and a real danger when drunk.

That was indeed their reputation. I've talked to both Swedes and Finns about this, and it seems that the Finns are more prone to alcoholism and anti-social behavior than their Scandinavian neighbors are. Their reputation in Sweden used to be quite similar to that of Irish people in Britain (although the hatred was nowhere near as bad). Of course, the Finns have been able to build a prosperous first-world society, because they've addressed those flaws and efficiently worked against them.

Russians have a similar tendency to alcoholism, depression and anti-social gloominess. This isn't surprising, seeing as they're genetically very close to the Finns. I imagine that Russia's alcohol problem is largely caused by an unfortunate combination of a macho binge-drinking culture and very alcohol-sensitive DNA.

As far as I know, Euro-Brazilians are a mix of Portuguese, Spanish, Northern Italians, and Germans (also a huge number of Japanese migrated there), with a dollop of Amerindian.

Euro-Brazilians (those who are fully white) are mainly German and North Italian. It's really them who have built up and improved Brazil, as far as it could be improved at all. Before the massive immigration from Germany and Italy into southern Brazil, it was basically a semi-African mulatto country. The original Portuguese colonists mixed a lot with the natives and their black slaves.

Russians have a similar tendency to alcoholism, depression and anti-social gloominess. This isn't surprising, seeing as they're genetically very close to the Finns.

This Russian-Finn connection fascinates me. Genetic and geographical closeness; societal outcomes that are radically different. I know there are thousands of factors at work, but it's an interesting exercise to try to pick apart what makes Russians the way they are today (alcoholism, high suicide rate, rock-bottom fertility, general bad health). How much is genetic, how much is echoes from 70 years of communism (...and how much of communism itself comes from Russians' genetic tendencies?) Finland missed becoming an S.S.R. by a hair, would present-day Finns be wildly different if that had happened?

Euro-Brazilians (those who are fully white) are mainly German and North Italian.

Thank you for this clarification. John Commons back in the 1900s (whom I quoted above) really maligned the fact that 'lucky' Brazil and Argentina were getting all the industrious Northern Italians, while the U.S. was stuck with their less functional southern cousins.

They're adapted to living in that environment and instinctively work to recreate it as it gives them a competitive advantage over people who are adapted to living in homogenous groups.

That is a ridiculous misreading of Ashkenazi Jewish history. Where in Europe did Ashkenazim live in a minority White nation? There is still to this day no nation in Europe that is minority White, and that was even moreso the case up to the 1890's before the waves of Ashkenazi emigration to the U.S.

One has to laugh at the other commenter who thinks that it is appropriate to generalize the behavior of reality TV stars to all American Jews. If Poland had gonzo American-style reality TV, I'm sure its caricature portraits of the Poles involved would be equally reflective of his co-ethnics. Likewise, does he think that all Italian are like the meatheads on Jersey Shore?

I know there are thousands of factors at work, but it's an interesting exercise to try to pick apart what makes Russians the way they are today (alcoholism, high suicide rate, rock-bottom fertility, general bad health).

It's a fascinating topic, and you could probably write long posts on the blog about it.

I don't think there is any easy answer to this question, but I suspect that one of the answers to why Russians are the way they are can be found in my comment about Russians having an unfortunate combination of binge-drinking culture and alcohol-sensitive genes that contradict each other. Cultural dysfunction is usually a result of contradictions, of elements (such as genetic pre-dispositions) that go against one another and create disharmony. It's usually a vast combination of genes, memes, and environmental influences that makes a nation behave in a particular way, and it's a very complex thing to analyze. A civilization works like an organism. I'm not sure what the clashing influences and inner contradictions in Russian society are, but they're almost certainly there under the surface, and they're one of the reasons why Russians are they way they are.

I'd read the books of Dostoyevsky and Spengler for a more satisfactory answer to this question, although the unexplored genetic reasons are also fascinating. I guess that famous quote about Russia was right - they really are "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma".

How much is genetic, how much is echoes from 70 years of communism (...and how much of communism itself comes from Russians' genetic tendencies?)

Communism was just a dictatorship that replaced the Tsar's dictatorship. The Russian people, almost certainly have a genetic tendency to collectivist ideas, due to their cold climate and all that. I guess the Finns also have this to a degree, although they were lucky to end up under Swedish rule (which resulted in Social Democracy and the welfare state), while the Russians got stuck with the Mongol Yoke (which resulted in absolute monarchy and totalitarian regimes).

Finland missed becoming an S.S.R. by a hair, would present-day Finns be wildly different if that had happened?

If the Finns became an SSR, they'd probably turn out like their cousins in the Baltic states, who were annexed. In other words, they'd be more "East European" and poorer than they are now, but still a Western-oriented democratic country, with nothing like Russia's culture of authoritarianism.

That the Russians weren't societally (and perhaps genetically) prepared to handle a Western-style democracy was made painfully obvious in the 90s, when it ended with the "oligarchs" stealing the entire economy and leaving it a Third World country.

John Commons back in the 1900s (whom I quoted above) really maligned the fact that 'lucky' Brazil and Argentina were getting all the industrious Northern Italians, while the U.S. was stuck with their less functional southern cousins.

True. One look at the IQ differences between Northern and Southern Italy would bear this out.

Cultural dysfunction is usually a result of contradictions, of elements (such as genetic pre-dispositions) that go against one another and create disharmony.

Communism was just a dictatorship that replaced the Tsar's dictatorship. The Russian people, almost certainly have a genetic tendency to collectivist ideas, due to their cold climate and all that. I guess the Finns also have this to a degree, although they were lucky to end up under Swedish rule.

Interesting points well-argued.

I'd read the books of Dostoyevsky and Spengler for a more satisfactory answer to this question

I shall. I'm sloooooowly trying to broaden my knowledge of Russian literature, because I find this people endlessly fascinating.

"It is the distinctive fact regarding colonial migration that it was Teutonic in blood and Protestant in religion. The English, Dutch, Swedes, Germans, and even the Scotch-Irish, who constituted practically the entire migration, were less than two thousand years ago one Germanic race in the forests surrounding the North Sea. The Protestant Reformation, sixteen centuries later, began among those peoples and found in them its sturdiest supporters. The doctrines of the Reformation, adapted as they were to the strong individualism of the Germanic races,"

If you understood that the peoples who became the nations of "English, Dutch, Swedes, Germans, and even the Scotch-Irish" were of the ten tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, you would come to realize that the United States is an Israelite nation, that we are the great nation promised to Manasseh by Jacob, and Protestantism is the fulfillment of Christ's New Covenant with the Lost Tribes of Israel.

Very well put together my friend. I see things from a multicultural perspective wherein white Catholics and white Protestant America is now being infiltrated, robbed, supplanted, subverted, and killed off through elitist Zionist/Jesuit dark hedonistic multiculturalism based upon dark heathen miscegenation and mass dark enemy coreligionist immigration facilitated by the treasonous anti-white 1964 civil rights act and the anti-white christian immigration reform law of 1965 pushed by communists, crypto-Jew Jesuits, and communist Jewish organizations by force. Now we have radical Islam created by the Vatican infiltrating our white christian institutions and nations to destroy us as well = leftist social justice.

The Russian monarchy was hardly a "dictatorship" at least compared to the USSR.www.unz.com/akarlin/progressive--empire/Russians from that time period are described as almost anarchic by their contemporary Western historians.

What the commenters here seem to gloss over is that the Soviet Union was as much Russian as the USA is white today, that is, the complete opposite.http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100362330The Soviets were big on diversity and local ethnic identities almost as much as the US left is right now, except they had utter power following the Revolution.

As for the Revolution, only a minority of the red army's members were ethnically Russian, the rest were ethnic minorities. That's one of the reasons it managed to win, brutalizing civilians is much easier when they're of an ethnic group that's not yours.

While many problems can be attributed to the Russian's genes themselves, to gloss over the destructively dysgenic result of the soviet dictatorship, and to even assume it might somehow have been Russian in character is indicative of belying ignorance rather than some complex enigmas.